Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights? [W:85]

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

Some black people died because they were refused medical care at the closest hospital, which happened to be private and discriminatory.

Discrimination which directly infringes upon the rights of others is legitimate concern and you can call for force of government to prevent against it. Not all discrimination is of that type though, and if no rights are infringed upon then you have no real basis for the use of government force against the rights of others.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Ikari

A cupcake is not on the level of Jim Crow laws, so that's a bit ridiculous. ...
Can't make everyone think and feel uniformly, and in a free society with large enough population, you will realize the full statistical distribution of actions.

It is not practical or helpful to decide that some business's products are so trivial that anti-discrimination laws should not be applied. If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are still being harmed.

How people and think is not relevant, it is how they treat their employees, potential employees and customers.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

There is widespread consensus that there is no right to not be offended. That is the only so-called "right" infringed upon when a business is "forced" to serve someone with the wrong skin color or accent.

Anti-discrimination laws secure individual's right to be treated as an equal human being who is judged by his/her behavior, not by an irrational prejudice. They prevent the harm from business discrimination against potential employees, employees and customers, which significantly outweighs the harm from being "forced" to tolerate undesirable races, religions etc in one's business.

Racial, religious etc. discrimination harms society and vulnerable people. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Even in a more urban environment, discrimination can force poor people to unnecessary waste time and money searching for a business that will accept their money in exchange for goods or services. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.

The business owner who doesn't like serving a customer because of their race, religion, gender etc is harmed much less when forced to serve that person than the would-be customer who has to find another place that will serve him/her is harmed. When a person can't get a job or a home because of race, religion, gender etc discrimination they suffer far more than the employer or landlord will suffer from being forced to treat that person as an equal. In addition, society as a whole is harmed by the impact of discrimination based on prejudice and hate.

Discrimination harms society by maintaining an impoverished underclass living with all the ill effects of poverty and oppression, effects which can impact everyone in the form of blight, large numbers of beggars, disease, crime, violence, rebellion and revenge.

Past experiences and the experiences of other places show us what happens when discrimination is allowed. Jim Crow laws existed during my lifetime and the negative effects from them still impacts life today. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed. These days it is as likely to be directed at Muslims and gays as blacks, but the tendency to ignorantly, irrationally and/or arbitrarily discriminate has not been sufficiently eliminated yet. For evidence, just look at all the racism and bigotry expressed on this forum and other public fora.

wrong to your whole statement, when your one another person's property you have no execrable rights...zero.

you only have a right to life and liberty on another person property.

discrimination laws, are laws designed to make people moral, towards their fellow man, and unconstitutional, because the government has no moral authority over the people, if they did they could declare abortion , vile and immoral, and put an end to it.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

It is not practical or helpful to decide that some business's products are so trivial that anti-discrimination laws should not be applied. If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are still being harmed.

How people and think is not relevant, it is how they treat their employees, potential employees and customers.

That is irrelevant if no rights are infringed upon. You're just making an arbitrary line where you think things are "fair".

The fact remains, you have no right to another man's property or labor. You are forcing people to work for you, paying them so they are more serf than slave, but forcing the work at the barrel of a gun. In this case the force of government. You have no right to another man's property or labor, where do you think you get this right? While government force can be used against exercise of right, it must be because rights have been infringed. Denying medical care, for instance, would infringe upon the rights of another and you can legitimately seek government intervention. Not getting a cupcake, however, does not; and you can simply go to another store instead.

If you cannot demonstrate violation of rights, you cannot demonstrate proper use of government force against the rights of others.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

wrong to your whole statement, when your one another person's property you have no execrable rights...zero.

you only have a right to life and liberty on another person property.

discrimination laws, are laws designed to make people moral, towards their fellow man, and unconstitutional, because the government has no moral authority over the people, if they did they could declare abortion , vile and immoral, and put an end to it.

It is not practical or helpful to decide that some business's products are so trivial that anti-discrimination laws should not be applied. If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are still being harmed.

What people feel and think is not relevant, it is how they treat their employees, potential employees and customers that matters with anti-discrimination laws.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

It is not practical or helpful to decide that some business's products are so trivial that anti-discrimination laws should not be applied. If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are still being harmed.

What people feel and think is not relevant, it is how they treat their employees, potential employees and customers that matters with anti-discrimination laws.

how are they being harmed?.......no one told them to drive anywhere.

it does not matter how you feel or think of how others treat there fellow man..if its not a rights violation or health and saftey, government has no authority over them and neither do you.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Hard Truth

It is not practical or helpful to decide that some business's products are so trivial that anti-discrimination laws should not be applied. If someone has to travel to the other side of town to get that cupcake they are still being harmed.

What people feel and think is not relevant, it is how they treat their employees, potential employees and customers that matters with anti-discrimination laws.

No, that's just a convenient definition you're trying to apply to excuse the carte blanche government force you call for. Are rights infringed upon? That's it. If yes, government force, if no, go to the business down the street. Done and done.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Originally Posted by Ikari

That is irrelevant if no rights are infringed upon. You're just making an arbitrary line where you think things are "fair".

The fact remains, you have no right to another man's property or labor. You are forcing people to work for you, paying them so they are more serf than slave, but forcing the work at the barrel of a gun. In this case the force of government. You have no right to another man's property or labor, where do you think you get this right? While government force can be used against exercise of right, it must be because rights have been infringed. Denying medical care, for instance, would infringe upon the rights of another and you can legitimately seek government intervention. Not getting a cupcake, however, does not; and you can simply go to another store instead.

If you cannot demonstrate violation of rights, you cannot demonstrate proper use of government force against the rights of others.

I didn't make the arbitrary line beyond expressing my opinion. Our legislators made the anti-discrimination laws and they were upheld by the Supreme court. Only racists, libertarians and extreme consrvatives have a problem with these laws.

I believe most people would agree that the right to be treated as an equal human being who is judged by his/her behavior, not by an irrational prejudice is more important than the "right" to not be offended. The "forced to work like a serf" argument is nonsense. No one is required by anti-discrimination laws to provide a good or service that they are not already willingly providing to everyone else (except the person with the "wrong' skin color) who uses that business.

Its interesting that the laws against racial, religious, etc discrimination are more controversial at this time than the disability access laws, because those laws actually do require business people to spend money and extra effort on providing access, so they are more legitimately considered an imposition.